to examine the upcoming british election and how the party leaders are doing in their american-style televised debate. "washington journal" is next. . .

hos[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> these are in the best interest of the country in the best interests of the financial sector. i want to tell you with this reform looks like and why this matter. the bill is being considered in the senate would create what we did not have before. this is a way to protect the financial system and the more broader economy, and american taxpayers. this is in the event that a large financial firm begins to fail. if there is a lehman brothers and an aig. how will we respond in a way that -- that does not force

taxpayers to take this. >> he is talking to wall street at cooper union. here is the headline on bloomberg. u.s. stocks rose, erasing the biggest effect of goldman sachs facing a lawsuit from the government. the los angeles times' front- page has this headline. the pace quickens as there is a finance bill deadline. the regulatory overhaul vote is on monday. this is how the "l.a. times" frames this story. obama paces wall street on reform, with lloyd blankfein at the speech yesterday. he will face the senate hearing on tuesday. with six current or former colleagues.

he failed to disclose the critical information to the investors. mr. obama restricted to move -- the room for maneuver by standing explicitly behind the locker -- volcker rule. they have the banks with the proprietary trading. this is aimed at the former fed chairman, this may give him discretion for the sell-off according to the people involved in the late -- the overall. with the financial times story about the speech from president obama, the ratings agency has found that the top rating agencies, standard and poor's and moody's, were influenced by the investment bankers who paid their fees in the lending

industry in the lead-up to the financial crisis. if you want to read those stories in several of the papers this morning. what do you think of the approach from president obama? this is your first phone line. >> i am small-business owner. i am at the bottom of the group. i have studied this kind of thing and i think that this is very important. looking back into 1947, when they studied civilization and why they thrive and why they do not thrive. this was the cover of "time" magazine. you have to have a middle-class for the consensus to survive.

the other thing is that you have to have cooperation within a society, and currently, this is not happening. these are not even willing to consider using troubled asset relief program money. the speech from mr. obama -- i want for him to think of the small businesses. these are the small, safe harbors of american enterprise. these are the places where the ideas -- you have to have them. if you have this kind of situation, you'll have what they described when he talked about the last chair being used to sell. we have to use the seeds to grow

the new economy, the new ideas, and the process that microsoft started. when you do this, this is going to become stagnant and this is going to die. host: what do you believe that the president should do to help small businesses? what should congress and the president do about this? caller: i just ran in and my voice is a little bit shaky. i do not care about being supported, economically, right now. all that i want is for a safe harbor to be preserved. like the small ships and the sailboats, the rowboats that represent the economic forefathers. he would be perfect, on sunday, bring in a person like this,

part of the teaching company that presented this so that people can understand what is going on in context. host: thank you very much. the independent line, in roanoke, virginia. caller: obama said to lloyd blankfein, the head of goldman sachs. he says you have nothing to fear from this legislation. this is a charade. they knew that this was all planned. this is a very narrow base, from the sec, and certainly, goldman sachs is going to lose, and they will have to pay a fine of $10 million. but in the meantime, we lost

$1.7 billion in this crash. they made billions of dollars out of the selling on the low side, much more money than they lost, and that was planned in this way. after this was concluded, they may even say that they will have to remove some of the executives of goldman sachs. but this is no major deal because others are going to move up with the situation. the system is going to change -- this will remain the same, and goldman sachs will be in command. the stock market went up because people understood that this was a charade. they were wanting to make this look to the people that the administration was finally being tough on goldman sachs, but this was far from the truth.

they will remain in business the same way that they are. host: we will hear from the democratic line, from georgia. caller: a person with a certain amount of intelligence, they cannot be manipulated. what kind of degree did he have, the money was never there. the money was never there. people were just living this life. if there was some kind of way to trace how this money went, taxes should be paid on this. if you are really looking at what is happening, all of these people, this is like a balloon. people were exposed and the

money was there. host: let us have a republican. caller: the government created this problem, and we have the least-qualified president to address this problem. he does not like a business or wall street. if you want to fix the economy, quit trading business, and wall street, like the enemy. host: then you will agree with the "wall street journal" editorial. obama is a gifted man, but we did not knew that he predicted the financial panic of 2008, referring to the speech yesterday were he said failure of responsibility, --

it says that they would have new sway over financial markets and risk-taking.

this is the "wall street journal" editorial. we have a democrat on the line. caller: this is the same as his approach on all the other issues that have come forward. this is intelligent and thought out, and we have already consulted the experts. i hear people talking about him, not being experienced. people call him a marxist and they say that he is inexperienced. these are the haters, and the people in the tea party. he is coming from a place where they do not have any clue. he is really trying to bring the country out of the masess that this is in.

this is the right approach. the statement about how -- there will be more testimony to this being the right approach. host: on the republican line, what are your thoughts? caller: the bank of international settlements has said that the federal reserve -- the currency in the last nine months. these are the real problems. inflation is 70%, and the value of the dollar is down by almost 90%. those are the real issues and he cannot fix this. host: the provisions in the financial regulation bill, the formulation of the nine-member oversight committee was chaired by the treasury secretary, and the head of regulatory agencies, to monitor the financial markets for potential threats.

miltown conn, the independent line? what do you think? caller: i would like to echo the man that says that this is a charade. if you look at this civil complaint, what this does is that this exonerates them of criminal activity. this case will be brought before the justice department. and when you look at the

scandal, -- there are presidents from both parties that are culpable, and there are politicians and the banking scandal that begins with the secretary of the treasury, reagan. dismantling the new deal. this is a collision between congress, and the multi- nationals. let's stop the battle between conservatives and democrats. she stated this much more eloquently than i -- that i can. we should get the country back and get a justice department, and get these criminal politicians out of office, i did not care what party they are in. c-spahost: republican line, from

louisiana. caller: he says that changes coming, and lost -- wall street controls the money. we have to go in there and this is part of the kaleidoscope. you have the president who is doing the right thing. those who do not want this, -- host: eagle rock, california. caller: this is just criminal, with this triple-day and then there is henry paulson, under reagan for the bailout. did not ask where the money is going and did not invest for the money is going. this is democratic. you sound like frank luntz. host: we have more from the speech from cooper union college.

>> as i said here two years ago, i believe in the power of the free market. i believe in a strong financial sector, that will help people to get loans and invest in savings. part of what has made america what it is. you take whatever you can never you can get this, and that is what led up to this crisis. some of them on wall street forgot that behind every dollar that is traded, or leverage, there is a family trying to buy a house, or pay for the education or open a business. or to save for retirement. what happened on wall street has real consequences across the country. i have also spoken about the need to move -- to have economic

growth in the 21st century. wall street reform as part of that foundation. host: here is the "the new york times", they have a $50 billion fund that will be financed by the large companies to take apart the big banks and move them out of business. the obama administration is against the finding because this may affect the ability to deal with costly bank factors. there is also concern over the consumer banking agency and the republicans also oppose a proposal in a bill with ranch -- given by center blanche lincoln from arkansas -- centered blanche lincoln from arkansas.

-- senator blanche lincoln from arkansas. caller: she has done nothing, and this will not stop. i have been in health care my entire life. professionalize, excuse me. one of my mba's is in accounting and finance. with the proposals that have been made, what they are doing is setting up wall street to do the same thing that they did before. i also happen to be privileged to live in the chicago area for more than one year, in the last decade. and there were a lot of my relatives, people in my employee who worked and they knew barack

obama and his wife. she was working in a different hospital in that area. and this was extremely interesting because all of the funding from the first day, when he was, from the time that he was working with the administration, in chicago, they came from the banking industry. nothing is going to change. and then i saw he was surrounding himself with. host: this was at the speech, yesterday? you said that he was surrounding himself -- caller: when he decided to run for office in chicago, and then he went on beyond that into national politics, he surrounded

himself with the same people and they were all financial. ron emmanuel -- rahm emanuel -- host: here is "usa today" who say that the financial industry has gone to d.c. insiders. host: that is usa today. we have jane on the republican

line. caller: i hope that we have a great discussion about this bill. we have the return of the robber barons from 100 years ago. we have not gone back to using that term again. we cannot chase the money out of the country. we have to be mindful of what the international financial industry is doing. when we put something in place, and the more conservative regime comes in, we have to make certain that we can fund this. this has to work. i am conservative, to the people who are listing. even george soros said that we have to regulate the banks. they should not stop regulating them. this is not good for us. we had a hand, the united states financial community, in collapsing the economy of other

countries. host: you may be interested in the "financial times." george soros has an article. he has said that credit defaults locks can be used as a license to kill. if you are interested in reading that, that is in the "financial times." wilson joins us on the democratic line. what do you think of the obama approach to wall street? caller: this is a great idea, but in the same time he has the petition did -- the position to do something for the american people. most of this came from the poor people of america. he has raised more money than any candidate during the race. he could even balance the deficit.

he could shut down all the banks and in time, the money that is left in the bank's, the rest of that will go back to the united states treasury. host: we have other headlines. it is likely that they will pass this with the new health care bill. 4 million americans will have to pay the penalty for not getting health insurance. this will average a little bit more than $1,000 in 2016 according to the congressional budget office. next to that is the frieze of the payment of congress. they will deny a built-in pay raise next year. the front page of "usa today."

generation y is held down by a lack of savings. obama -- barack obama and his wife will go to north carolina, to go to a resort in-fill for private time, and they are expected to stay at tehe grove park in. this may be $670 for the club level. that is the schedule for the weekend. otis from jackson, michigan. caller: i want to say this. all but obama does is talk about the lack of integrity, and he will set the tone. host: is that everything? caller: that is everything.

host: we have the democratic line. caller: how is the average american, or the average investor, going to be able to figure out the exotic instruments that were being sold when the german banks could not figure this out? what was done, this was almost a crime. i think that the president was very easy on wall street. i think that i want to see somebody in handcuffs. people have lost their homes, their children's opportunities to go to college, and the savings were tied up with all this money. they are still getting bonuses? two weeks ago? host: "don't cry for wallstreet."

obama went to cannot -- went to a crowd drawn from wall street to push financial reform. krugman writes -- mr. obama said it won't affect financial regulation. too bad. it seems likely -- lakeland, florida. leo, you areo n the air. -- are on the air. caller: i am calling, in

reference to what is happening on wall street. i saw what he said and what he's trying to implement, this is very positive. there was a previous caller, and said that he surrounded himself with his friends and all of that. every president does this. that is all that i have to say. i think that he is doing a good job. what he is doing should have been done a very long time ago. host: thank you. the senate seat is going to be competitive in arkansas. this is currently leading republican. and this is also listed as a tossup. joining me is the little rock

bureau capital correspondent to talk about this. blanche lincoln, the incumbent, she is being challenged in the primary on may 18 by the lieutenant governor. guest: this is a key race to follow because blanche lincoln, even before he was in the race, was considered one of the most vulnerable democrats facing reelection. the approval numbers in arkansas have gone down, over the last year. especially as the debate has increased over health-care overhaul. she has described herself as being the role in the middle of a tug-of-war between the extreme right and the extreme left. halter got into the race right at the beginning of the filing in arkansas, and basically, at the urging of a lot of different

groups that have been unhappy with her positions. she was seen as going against the obama administration on some important issues like the public option in health care and halter has the support of a lot of groups that are not happy with her, including labor unions and moveon.org. they are putting a lot of money into the race, and this is looking like one of the most expensive political race in the history of this state. host: moveon.org has raised about 1.5 million online to support the lieutenant governor. how has she respond to this challenge? guest: she has responded very aggressively. that is one thing that is very striking. this has become a very bitter

battle, very quickly. if you live in arkansas and you turn on the television, you will see advertisements between them and not to mention, other groups that are doing independent expenditures. they are going after either candidate. she is trying to make him look like he is supported by a lot of the outside groups. she has been making an issue out of the support that he has gotten from the labor unions. it is very hard to get over that period. guhost: she is part of the agricultural committee, and they rode a large part of this when it comes to the derivatives. some are surprised by what she brought to this legislation. guest: this is a move over to

the left, especially for her. and this is something that many of the bank's do not like. they do not like what this puts on the practice. and there has been some speculation that she was moving to the left on this because of the challenge from halter. she has got a lot of press out of this, and she has a lot of attention from this. this was approved in the agricultural committee and she was able to get one republican to support this. this is something that she has been mentioning more, and we expect this during the first debate, she will be talking about this as an example of working against wall street. the message against her has been trying to paint her as an advocate for wall street instead of main street. host: the first debate will be

tonight and we will have this at 8:00 eastern time. the first democratic primary debate for the arkansas senate seat. your story for the associated press have this headline. blanche lincoln says that she will not take the money from goldman sachs. guest: this is an issue that has been raised and we expect to hear about this tonight. and there will be another debate on saturday. i expect to hear about this message on friday and saturday. even though she is working on derivatives legislation, she has received money from goldman sachs. on january 1, she received $4,500 in contributions from the political action committee. another web site reported that she had a fund-raiser at their headquarters planned for monday. she had canceled this.

the campaign says that they did not have anything scheduled but they had been discussing about some kind of meeting their. but they now say it -- because of the charges against goldman sachs, her campaign would not take any contributions from goldman sachs or the employees, or schedule anything related to the campaign. this was a change from what she had said before. but one thing is that alter -- alter -- halter is telling her to return the contribution. she has been talking about the derivatives legislation, and she says that this does not influence policy. this is something that goldman sachs of the other banks would not like. >> how are the opinion polls? >> there is some variation.

one website recently did an opinion poll that shows that she has only a seven-point lead, 38-31. this was about 20% of the people have responded, they were undecided. and 10% were supporting the third candidate in the primary, and he has not been getting a lot of attention. he is a very conservative democrat. he is the only one calling for the repeal of the health-care overhaul. the other opinion polls have shown a greater margin for blanche lincoln. she had a 45%-33% lead with 6% undecided. this may be anywhere from seven%. -- digit lead. she is still below 50%. there was internal opinion

polling that gave her a greater margin, above 50%. but there is definitely a variation, and the interesting thing is that many people thought that this would be decided on may 18. there is the possibility that there may be a runoff, that may stretch until june. host: and there is the republican primary as well. who is running in that contest? >> there are eight republicans who are running. and the top contenders, the most well-known and the one conservative front-runner is john boozman. he got into this very late, not until earlier this year, and many of these candidates have been running for the past year. he is believed to be the front runner just because of his name

recognition, and also, his fund- raising ability. there is also gilbert baker and he was considered the front- runner. and he is still considered a front runner. he is well-known for working with the legislature. several other candidates, including jim holtz. -- holt. he was the nominee in 2004 and he lost against lincoln. he is experiencing -- either one of the maine democratic candidates he has experience against. >> the general election has been said to be leaning republican. does this mean that both of them would probably lose in the general election?

>> it is difficult to tell, and it really does depend on how the primaries are. one of the interesting messages that you hear in both primaries is about how they are running similar messages in terms of saying that washington is broken. halter is using this on lincoln. baker had his campaign make the argument that if altar is given -- halter is given the nomination, it will be easier to use this argument. the match-up at this time, the numbers are favoring the republicans but it depends on what kind of match up that this is. this is a very long time until the election. host: thank you very much for

your time. you can tune in to watch the first primary debate between these three democratic candidates, who are running in arkansas. we will have coverage at 8:00 eastern, 5:00 on the west coast. c-span.org and c-span radio. what do you think about this? rachel joins us from taxes on the independent line. caller: i was commenting on what the woman said, about who obama was associating with. i just want to know what the terrorist was doing working in the school system under the watch of george bush. host: we are talking about the approach to wall street from president obama. >> i am happy that people are

waking up. i think that the new regulation is going to do, this is going to create bigger banks. they are going to be the only ones who will be able to financially weather the storm of this new regulation and the requirement. what will happen is more community banks are going to go under. that is under the new regulation. what we have is more monopolies. and i think that when it really needs to happen in congress is to enforce the anti-trust law, and break goldman sachs into hundreds of smaller companies. you are not going to stop the corruption. just make the corruption as small as possible so that when they fail, this does not bring

down the economy. host: in a speech in new york, yesterday, the president was pushing for the overhaul of the financial industry. here is more about what he had to say. >> this was not just the result of the decisions made on wall street. this was also the result of decisions made across kitchen tables across america. people who took on mortgages and credit cards and many americans took on financial obligations that they should have known they could not afford, millions of others were frankly surprised and misled by the terms and conditions. a few of the companies exploited their customers and the entire economy was made more vulnerable. millions of people have now lost their homes. tens of millions more have lost

the value of their houses. every sector of the economy has felt the pain. if you are paving driveways in arizona or doing home repairs in california or using your home equity to start a small business in florida. that is why we have to give consumers more protection and more power in the financial system. host: we are talking about the approach of the president to wall street. caller: thank you, and thank you for c-span. i -- i support president obama and he is doing everything that he can to bring back the country from the crash that took place. i personally believe that what they are doing probably does not go far enough, but, he is trying to fashion an approach that can get through congress.

and there needs to be some kind of regulation to keep the citizen safe, where there does not have to be another bailout. i support his approach 100%. i would like a little bit more civility among the american public. if you are republican or democratic, we are americans. calling him a socialist or labeling president obama, i call into question the intelligence of the individuals making those kinds of statements. host: the "wall street journal" said that people are against this for a variety of reasons, but they have every right to fight them. obama said that the opposition

was dishonest. host: that is the editorial this morning. lyle, from the independent line. caller: the thing with goldman sachs is a smokescreen.

this is turning the american people away from the real problem, with fannie mae and freddie mac. this is not even covered in this bill. they are showing us $1 trillion out there, that somebody was working for. this covers up the idea that republicans and democrats and barack obama are very close with taking money from the financial sector and will not change this. this is the nature of the beast. host: goldman sachs is the focus of the bloomberg business week magazine. this is the new layout for bloomberg business week magazine. the companies merge together recently. if you are interested in this, this is on the newsstands. caller: what i was calling about was that the proposals that

obama is suggesting, we have enough regulatory law on the books. if this is not enforced and they do not hold the head of the regulatory commissions responsible, or the politicians responsible, following the last caller, this was the focus of the problem. the politicians were pandering to the political base, and they were involved in something they had no business being involved in. host: here is the business section of -- this is a piece about charles schumer of new york. he says that industry did a lot wrong. they said the fact that he has

embraced the new legislation with the constraints on the leading industry in his hometown. saginaw, michigan. on the democratic line. what do you think of the approach of president obama to wall street? caller: i not think that he goes far enough. i think that we should take a step back, looking back and see how we got into this. this started in the 1980's. the deregulation but the general public. this is from wall street and all the people with all the money, anyway. this is like a shell game. this is completely ridiculous. the american people cannot see what is going on in the senate and on wall street, and in congress, all of this is about the greed. this is nothing more than greed.

host: greece is moving closer to a default situation, and the talks continue on the rescue package. caller: thank you for taking my call. the obama administration, this legislation will not address the problem. this is what the problem basically came from. we solve the business from barney frank, and christopher dodd. they would not allow the regulators to come in this is

what created the problem that we have today. host: the front page of "usa today." the cost of military health care is greater than the american health care costs as they work to cover two different wars. there are the active-to the families, that may increase in 15 years. are you with us? caller: obama is trying to pull something with wall street. all that he is wanting to do is get some votes. they say that the administration is nothing but a con man, and

the little guy is paying for this. good morning. caller: i wanted to talk about this. obama is trying to get out of there as soon as possible. fannie mae is part of this. he took money and i am against this. host: we have kenneth on the independent line. caller: good morning, c-span. anyone who hears me this morning, we can worry about wall street all that we want, with these regulatory agencies. what does this matter, what they do with the money that they do not have.

these are the tariffs that we have to address. we are trying to get people back to work. we want to get these institutions back to work. host: dorothy, on the democratic line? are you with us? i think that i did something there. we will put you on hold and we will come back to you. please call in, if i lost you. portland, maine on the democratic line. caller: good morning. what do you think about the approach of the president to wall street? caller: this is just like -- host: we are listening, james. caller: i believe that if i go out there and rob a bank, i will

go down for this. this is the same way for them. host: some of the provisions from this bill that may come to the floor on monday, that is what the majority leader said yesterday. whether or not the republicans can work out a deal on going forward. there will be a vote on monday, to move forward with the debate. we have the formation of the nine-member oversight council, chaired by the secretary and the heads of the regulatory agencies, to monitor the financial markets for the potential threats. they would gain oversight of the non-banks. the bank-holding companies, we have the unsecured creditors and

management also be removed. there is the consumer protection division, with consolidating power that is now exercised by the bank regulators. they may veto the regulators. the shareholders would have the right to cast the non-binding votes on executive pavement. we have more on the republican line and i am talking about the speech from obama, yesterday. and a strategy towards wall street. caller: he reminds me of -- there is the one hand and he is doing something with the other. you have to look at this administration and what they are doing with goldman sachs. this is not going to happen.

host: we saw this in the bush administration as well. caller: this is not what he was trying -- host: some would say that the financial crisis began at the end, when henry paulson was in. caller: this has just carried on. these were not being enforced. when obama came out of office, he was counting -- you can count how many people were in the administration. that is how badly that he wants to go after them. host: we were hoping to talk about immigration reform, but the guest cannot join us.

here is this piece, this morning. this is the hastily-ridden reform bill. harry reid may try to respond to the immigration reform bill. this is introduced by may 1. this would be disruptive to the business and labor groups, and they resumed to try to make compromise, to meet the labor needs. the talks broke down last month but resumed in hopes of making a comprehensive reform bill, introduced by charles schumer and lindsay gramm, the republican from south carolina. that is the latest on the immigration reform in congress. the majority leader has said that the attempt to deal with the regulation came as a surprise. the immigration legislation may

come before climate change and a step some people by surprise. the democratic officials spoke about this and the arizona governor is going to act on immigration enforcement, this is the associated press. they are nearing a deadline to act on the toughest legislation against illegal immigration. this landed on the gas -- on the list on monday. but will allow the bill to become law in the future. what do you think about the approach of president obama to wall street? caller: i was there disappointed -- this was very weak. i compared this to the speech in november, when jamie dimon

avoided him. he was scared to death in november. he was going sideways. we compare this to when he campaigned, the fight for the health care bill. they're just going through the motions. host: we have the possibility of this coming up in congress. this is not more urgent than the energy bill. this was reported yesterday by the christian science monitor. go ahead. caller: to the people know that they have all of these hearings on c-span? i think that this would shed some light on what is going on because we have heard all of these trials and everything.

i know that the newspapers, the big business is sound and they put their own things in, and many of these are the opinions. the only place to get the truth is to listen to what is happening at the horse's mouth, by yourself. i do not want to hear what someone else is telling me. i want to listen to the hearings. i am 81 years old. i watch c-span all day. host: next week, the ceo of goldman sachs will be testifying with some former employees before a senate committee about this allegation from the sec. you may want to tune in to this. go to c-span.org to see the schedule. priscilla, on the republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. wall street should be down on the list that obama is working

on right now. there are millions of people who were out of work. why is he not doing something about that, passing this along? there are millions of people who depend on wall street for the dividends. they have invested in wall street. this is just a waste of time. why cannot do something about the people who are not employed, and they need work? this is just awful. host: there is legislation in the house and senate on the jobs, and the tax cuts, making its way through both of the chambers, who if you are interested in those. good morning. caller: the president has done a very good job, and we have to give him some slack. you have to get past the republican hard-noses, first. they are wanting for america to fail. these are the teabaggers.

we have to give him a chance. he has been there a little bit over one year. host: bonnie is on the democratic line. caller: it is time for the country to realize that we have been duped by the system. .

>> i'm here today specifically when i speak to the titans of industry. i am here to encourage you in fighting this effort. i believe these reforms are in the end, not only in the best interest of our country but the financial sector. i'm here to explain what reform will look like and why it matters. first, the bill being considered in the senate, would create what we did not have before. that is a way to protect the

financial system and americans. if there's i lee mans or an aig, how can we respond in a way that doesn't worse taxpayers to pick up the tab. here is the new york daily news cover. they show president obama from march 27, 2008 at cooper union versus yesterday's speech. some differences. mayor blume warmly introduced him. a key line was "a free market was never meant to be a free license to get whatever you can get however you can get it." >> mayor blume sat in the audience after getting late notice.

oakland, california on the republican line, good morning. >> as far as i'm concerned, obama has done the right thing this time. they may have committed tree son and they need to be executed. >> some other differences between the speech yesterday and 2008 speak. today, 8 million jobs lost within the past two years. douth jones stood at 12,3 2. now howevering about 11,000. housing foreclosures in 2008, 235,000 a month.

today, of 7,000 a month. today, hundreds of banks have been saved by $200 billion taxpayer bill out. host: from the independent line. go ahead. caller: i'm calling in support of the president's administration not only by the

administration but by everyone throughout the country. >> you've been following this bill quite closely. did you think there's comprimise to be made with republicans? caller: i have no idea. i think from what information i am, there has been an effort leading up to this bill to

obtain support. i believe that the senate committee did pick up one republican vote to enable it to go forward on this bill. host: the senator out of iowa voted out of the agricultural committee to go forward. caller: right, right. exactly. that to me, is the most important core issue of the reform. i just felt for years that the word greed just has overwhelmed our financial system as well as large corporate activities. host: next phone call, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: yes, you know the banking industry. there was very little controls on it before the last

depression, the big one. you know, the republicans just let everything go ahead and fail. now, when president reagan was in, they started to do away with all the regulations and calling big government, downing the government. i don't understand why not just put the regulations back on that they took off. it takes cureage to take on wall street. i applaud the president in what he's doing but i really don't believe he's gone far enough. >> you know, i listen to c-span. i hear so many people calling in. you can see most of the people have so much propaganda, they

really don't have enough information to make a good judgmental call. thank you. >> why is the stock market not selling off on all this bad news on wall street because this is fraud. next phone call from virginia on the republican line. go ahead. caller: glad you took my call.

i think this is a direct result of trickle down economics. it failed to realize that the money wasn't trickling down and now it's like taking candy from a baby, they are all screaming because they want to impose regulations that they did away with. that was supposed to stimulate the economy and get it going, which it did for the short term but it had the long term in sight. >> this is eugene's piece this morning. a lion in the gambling den. it says wall street is still going to be a depam belling den. still a betting house. anyone expecting truly fundamental change is going to be disappointed.

boston on the independent line. go ahead. good morning. we can hear you. caller: one i would like to say. praise the lord, we spent $3 trillion bailing him out. never again. thank you, president obama. host: good morning. what's happening here is a lot of misinformation out this. it's a strategy used by the

people who are rich and powerful, wall street, and the republican party that's always covered for big business. people do not do research. this for misinformation worked. that's why we have adds on tv selling everything, cosmetics and stuff. people don't go out and see what they moit want, they fall for the ads. misinformation is a tool. >> all right. we are talking about president obama's approach to wall street. some other headlines for you.

a story written by the associated press. then this headline about the supreme court pick. if you are interested in reading that in the "washington post." also, this story about the census, the response is nooring the 2000 rate. as forms continue to trickle in, americans are posed to match and could overtake the 72% that returned their form in 2000. that's the "washington post" this morning with an update. dan on the republican line, good morning. >> good morning. i just wanted to make the comment that i agreed with a lot your callers who indicated that we should be working on improving jobs. this is a lot of people hurting. we should be fixing jobs in america. i'm disappointed that we spent

all year last year trying to deal with healthcare instead of jobs. i'm disappointed now that we are trying to deal with wall street kind of issues when we should be dealing with jobs. i'm really disappointed that we haven't done that. the way we crow a jobs right now, the private sector is not willing to spend money. people are unwilling to move and make investments. i could solve the problem tonight. i don't have to wait until tomorrow. i could go on tv and lay to rest a lot of fears. the other things that needs to

happen, private industry needs to have the money to invest we would give them the money they need to invest. they would create the job. >> dan, what do you do for a living? >> i'm in the engineering world. host: do you own your own business? caller: no, i don't. thank you very much. host: rose on the independent line. good morning. caller: i don't think president obama is going far enough. i think it's toim to reintroduce brass eagle. i think the democrats and republicans take too much from wall street. we bank at one of the big banks. we were with a smaller bank and it was taken over about 10

years ago. my husband and i have a few small investments. we are retired. we went into the bank and told them when our investments were maturing so we could pull them out without penalty because we were toing to move back to a smaller bank. the gal we talked to -- we've talked to her for years. we thought she would say, we are really sorry to loose your business. her comment was we don't need

>> failing toen list one element in the financial industry. that is whistleblowers. the last person in the financial sector is doing 40 months in federal prison how do you get from the inside if you are prosecuting the people who step up and move their hand. second of all, as far as jobs

go. there's two things the president could do. first of all, he could eliminate cap and trade and just have cap. could you imagine all the jobs that could be instant if we did just cap on greenhouse gases. it would be overnight. second of all, public option on healthcare >> bill, we'll leave it there. surviving the storm, rally and debate. it was the second debate over there. we covered it live on c-span. if you are interested, go to c-span .org .org. we are going to take a look at last night's debate and the election over there and get your phone calls and comments about that. we'll talk with the political

analyst from that organization as well as adam bolton who was the moderator of last night's debate. chris on the republican line, go ahead. caller: i think the investigation is a smoke screen. >> i think the democrat block and depreen span spoke again the mort crisis and the dangers of it and god and obama and blocking the regulations to try to step off the crisis. now -- the other thing, obama took so much money from goldman. it's one big smoke screen as

displaying the democrats being against the rich. host: north carolina, david on the independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you, depreta. i notified recently, the financial services that is investigating what happened. i notified a number of newspapers around the country about what i call ground zero of this crisis. i have this book called six sikma a section talks about financial services. this book was publiced in 2002. this is a group of people based out of arizona that goes no all these companies to try to cut out the fat. the section on financial services talks about reducing the average industry standard of a seven days to get a home

lone approval. they have those guys called black belts and depreen belts. what they wanted to do was reduce the seven-day approval down to two. consider 9 originating loan officer who has maybe 25-30 sitting on his or her desk. i have goten no reply from anybody. and bonuses tied to this really was something. host: we'll leave it there. the white house will meet. moating at 9:30.

the 18 member commission will move over across the street to a conference room. four witnesses will testify. the federal reserve chairman last week, the co-chairs to the debt commission and former clinton white house chofe of staff and commission executive director met with all 12 members of the panel. the 18 member panel is made up of about 10 democrats and 8 republicans. forwarding the recommendation to the congress. 14 of the 18 members have to approval. the filing deadline is november 1 for those recommendations. promising to put the commission

recommendations to the vote. this is fox news reporting on their website. caller: the holder in due course was abolished for consumer credit transactions in 1948. the same thing happening. they are taking advantage of the instruments to sell defective products. just making this transparent isn't going to do it. >> writing this morning of an opinion piece, a secular socialist machine. in an april 14, oped wrote.

>> you can read more in the "washington post" this morning. on the independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. it's a medium that people need. can i make a couple comments on housekeeping on the video? what i'm seeing. host: sure. what video? caller: on the presentation. i called in as an independent. i would like the word to be

non-partisan. the other thing would be it would be nice if your name was on there occasionally. then, when the call comes in, it says from maryland, could you also put whether it's republican or democrat. host: we try to say that to give the call context. caller: you say it but it's not on the screen. host: got you. caller: president obama's approach to wall street. i bought some stock when i was 21 years old at general motors. 10 shares and now it's worth nothing. i don't worry about it too much. that was my loss. i'm frustrated with the big bucks and these companies getting ripped off, maybe the

government can help this, i'm not an expert on it. but really, i think the stock holders were the prime ones that need to get more involved in these individual companies and straighten them out. our financial crisis is more with government spending at all levels. federal, state and local. if we could do something to make wall street relationships better, than that's fine if president obama wants to do that. that's what i think, greta. host: we'll move to the republican line. caller: michigan mitchell, i'm sorry. host: i'm sorry. caller: i think the wall street reform is unnecessary. unless we deal with the federal

reserve, nothing is going to matter. we have the federal reserve, which artificially holds interest rates low. our rates are not set by the free market which causes the gross distortion and moral hazard. people make unwise decisions because of this. we can't deal with wall street reform. i hear a lot of people calling up about jobs and how president obama should be worrying about jobs. his job is to be commander and chief of the military. it is becoming so much so that he's having to be some what responsibly for all aspects of the economy, our personal lives. it's been going on for decades now. the main thing is the federal reserve. no one wants to talk about. nothing is going to change.

>> that will have to be our last word on this. the debt commission will meet on tuesday next week, not monday as i incorrectly stated before. we are going to turn to the debt. the debate that's happening here in washington about whether or not the government should have a value added tax. we'll have a round table discussion coming up next. we'll be right back. >> let's meet another winner in the c-span student cam video competition. we asked about one of our country's greatest strengths. an eighth grader in knoxville, tennessee. why do you believe freedom of speech is the heart of our

nation? >> well, it's central to the way that we go about american life. the heart of the nation is central. without freedom of speech, america would not be the country we are today. what did you know about the frow document of speech before you started your project? >> we had a good understand of what it meant. i don't think we understood how important it was. that's what we learned later on. >> what did you learn from the people you interviewed? >> we chose to interview people in the media industry. we learned from a insider view how they use freedom of speech daily. they are exercising this more often than most of us.

>> freedom and speech protects everybody's rights. if somebody expresses something i don't like, they can still express that. i'm not able to block them off. it can make people feel uncomfortable. you have somebody sharing an opinion you don't agree with. because of those rights, we've been such a successful nation because we have all those ideas coming together. we've formed solutions.

frow document of speech really protects everybody's rights regardless of how you feel about other people's opinions. how does the freedom of speech play out in your daily lives? >> not just me saying smrks it can also be the clothing somebody wears. if you have a shirt on that expresses something you believe in and it is not explicit or inappropriate, that shirt is protected. in a lot of ways in daily life, everybody is able to express and share views freely without worrying about the government coming down on them or a public school.

>> thank you for your time. here is a portion of the documentary. >> included in the amendment, the right to free speech along with free press and the right are such a part of the character of america. rights are not to be taken for

gratted but ranler to be asserted and assigned from generation to generation. >> to watch all our winning videos go to student cam .org. >> senior fellow at the bookings institution. here to talk about the value added tax debate happening here in washington and whether or not that's a way to tackle. a definition we have here of the value added tax is a tax levied at the point of sale. can you give us an example of how it would work. someone has to sell the leather to the factory that makes the

shoes so they pay a tax. a factory that makes the shoes also pays a tax. they go to a retailer and they pay a tax. each level of production gets a credit for the fact that an earlier stage of production paid a tax. it's like a sales tax as far as a consumer is concerned. it is paid by businesses. they don't have to file tax returns or anything like that. each business this this chain gets some credit for the taxes

paid by the previous part of the chain. businesses watch out to make sure they are getting their share of the tax. it sounds really complicated but yes, it's a very efficient tax that most countries, in fact all countries use it now. the u.s. is one of the very few nations in the world that doesn't have a value added tax. we have an enormous budget definite now. we need to do something both on the budget and debt side. what percentage would you node to charge in order to

effectively tackle the debt. >> it would depend how quickly you wanted to do it. i would never recommend we add a value added tax right now in the middle of a recession. that would be an unwise thing to do. if we had a 5% back, that would produce something in the neighborhood of $300 billion a year that would help a lot along with other measures to bring down the deficit and the debt. some who argue for a value added tax, national sales tax. if you had one at about 10% to 14%. it would lower rates for everyone else. those other people say that 10% would pay to enroll in a healthcare plan.

another person said that 25% would pay for an over haul and slash the top rate to 25%. why would this be a bad idea in your opinion? >> the value add tax is very efficient but only if we eliminate the current tax code

it would be a e an ee more nouse burden. is it something you could do later during more successful economic times >> if we were taking income tax and scrapping it and starting over to bring in a vat to replace it. >> is that what other countries do? >> no. they we place that.

>> the average is 18%. >> in a european union, these charge about 15% on to anything you buy. >> at least. that's the minimum you have to charge to be in the eu. >> what is the strategy right now there are several people that have come out and at least

suggested. both the fed shares. tip toing around the issue they asked how they felt. they said that was not part of the president's plans. there's very little willingness on the part of the executive or congressional branch at this point to take this on.

>> you wrote, if congress were to create a value added tax, it would be an unending well. >> every time they want to raise spending by $100 billion here, $200 billion there, they go back to the vat, creating a rise for a little while and take care of the need. >> now is the time to cut back on the spending and getting it under control. >> how do you tackle the debt? >> first of all, the vat has always been out there and talked about. it comes up as something that the country should be doing. it's coming up now because of

these massive deficits. these have been sped up into the current budget window. the reason is all the spending we've under gone in the past couple of years. first thing we can do is cut back and not spend the money we could spend with the stimulus and all the other spending increase that's could happen. in the long run, we do need to increase and make them more affordable so they are not threatening our fiscal health. >> showing deficits forever, the federal government has spent more than it has raised every year since 1970, except for a four-year period at the end of the clinton administration. when other options are this on the table?

we need a balance package of spending cuts and revenue increasesment a vat is an efficient way. i don't think people want to see their income taxes go up. on the spending side, we have to give the administration credit for having frozen all the spending outside defense and homeland security. that is going to entail some discipline. i don't know if the congress can live up to that. it is disappointing that during the last 8-10 years, we haven't had any spending control. in 2003, we passed the largest entitlement we have had for decades. we put it on the national

credit card. the previous administrations have shown willingness to cut spending of all of us believe something does have to be done about both healthcare spending and social security and every other part of the budget needs to be scrapped. i promise you, we can't do it all on the spending side. that's where we would disagree. >> on the republican line, go ahead. >> good morning. good morning. >> i am dumb founded at the intentional misinformation passed on here. england has an 18% vat tax. france has a 20% vat tax. they are talking about raising it to 25. they have 50% unemployment.

greece has a vat tax. they are bankrupt. this is a country we are talking about. in canada, just out there the other day, bought small egg sandwiches with orange juice, it cost me $20. do not sit there and tell me a vat tax is efficient. >> what about his argument pointing to countries that have it and are not doing well. >> i don't think anybody is doing well. the u.s. isn't doing wonderful either. the fact that we are in a recession appointments to the fact. we know that as related to the financial crisis and not to the form of tax that's we have in each country. i agree that this is a i very

bad time to be raising taxes. i totally agree with them? >> what about these countries who have a vat tax and struggling to come out of this situation. >> raises taxing doesn't close the deficit. what isa bell was saying, she wasn't saying it doesn't raise prices that is true.

of all of the inefficiencies walter on the democrat line. go ahead. in other areas, they could cut waste. 11% gnat tax done away with the irs. showing that everybody will benefit and jobs will be created. caller: i'm a big proponent of the flat tax. national sales tax, they are all economically talking about

waste. it's a part of the problem. biggest problem is coming from over spending it needs to be most sustainable in the long run. >> good morning. go ahead. caller: reason for my call is that this idea, did you really believe this congress and administration will go ahead and use a vat tax to reduce the deficit? these guys from chicago, illinois. state of illinois is ready to go under. i don't trust these people at

all. we need to go to a flat tax. host: isabel. go ahead. >> a vat is very similar to a flat tax. if people are in favor of a flat tax, they should be more in favor of a vat. i think it makes a lot more sense. i suggest all those people get on board with the vat. i like the idea put forward just keep the income tax excuse

everybody else from ever having to file a tax return we could lower the corporate business tax what would be the out come. that would be $150 who never had to file the income tax return not only because it takes money you feel you've earned. also because they hate the complexity and burden a nice thing about a vrn at or flat tax is is that everybody pays it because everybody buys goods and services more than half of

the u.s. public pays income tax the majority is voting on benefits. >> if we eliminate income tax, a good chunch already reporting if we have an income tax and vat, we could raise more in the future in a way to always boost the government. caller: good morning.

a few minutes ago, it was said knowing the government was talking about a vat. just the other day the president referred to this as a novel idea and the speaker of the house said this is something that should be on the table. if they are not in the administration or government. i don't know who is. host: let me add to that that the debt commission, one of the staffers also mentioned that it should be something that the debt commission, which is moating tuesday thinks about as a solution to the problem. caller: the caller is absolutely correct. i stand corrected. thank you for pointing that out it has been mentioned. let me remind everyone that senator mccain introduced a recommendation showing that it would be no vat. it would be a really bad idea.

85 members of the senate voted for that resolution including all of the republicans, i believe and most of the democrats there isn't much courage. no tax is a great thing. nobody likes taxes. the alternatives may be worse. we have to keep in mind that we are running off a really scarry amount of debt in this country. we could go the same way of greece. believe me, that would be much worse and more painful for everyone than some increase in taxes along with some spending cuts.

di 20/20, taxes without changes u.s. today article discusses social security. the program costs $715 billion to 2020. possibilities include

>> we need to raise the retirement age and raise the means testing. social security is probably the easier to fix. we know how to take care of that. it is medicare that is the real problem out in the future. >> you want to weigh in on that. i agree with all of that. i wouldn't want to index the social security index to low income americans but for people above that level who don't need it, i think we should begin to income relate out in the future. you nood to give people time to

prepare. you can't suddenly pull the rug out. we all agree with that. the basic point is that there's a lot of agreement within the policy community about these issues. the problem is political paralysis. the debt commission is expected to talk about social security. mentioning the issues of medicare and med i cade. this will cost more than $800 billion and by 2020, they'll cost $1.5 trillion. raising the age from 56-67. it would raise the premium of doctor bills. your next phone call, go ahead. >> i'm wandering about

farm-made items. everything would have a common basis here in the u.s. everything whether produced here or in the foreign country would have the same value added tax. you will it would do is raise the prices here in the u.s. if we start levying on the exporters, it raises on those

produced here. if you buy something on line how does that work? >> all countries zero rate that as well i'm not sure i even thought that through >> i think that would likely have an impact if that replaced our current system i think that that could be an improvement >> texas, jane on the independent line. >> first, i'd like to say, if all these civilized countries throughout the world, how come all these people are trying to come to the united states? the value added tax would work if you do away with all income

taxes, all other taxes then it would be fair because every single person would be paying the same tax rate. next thing you could do is start cutting these programs. i have seen people come in and have $10 per pound stakes, lobsters and pay for them with food stamps. i can't afford them and i worked all my life. another thing is the social security disabilities

investigating the task force. host: we'll leave it there. what do you think? guest: he raised a whole lot of issues. it's always easy for people to say well, let's not cut the spending i benefit from. as occur tuesday said earlier, these programs you are talking about are not the real problem. the real problem is social security, medicare and interest on the debt. .

host: i believe the percentage of the federal budget for welfare -- guest: tiny. host: "usa today" talks about other spending programs that could be scaled back. reversing the army's projected troop increase would save $92 billion. slashing highway funding to shore up the highway trust fund would help pay for repairs. then there are taxes. the biggest revenue boost would come from eliminating the bush tax cuts passed by congress in

2001 and 2003. if all of them were wiped out. the government would collect $2.80 trillion more in taxes. guest: notice the difference between the numbers, $2.80 trillion vs a few tens of billions prepared hos. host: this is "the washington times." "with democrats facing potentially ruinous losses, the planting of that dangerous decisions on a federal retirement programs like social security and medicare to a bipartisan commission." also on taxes, what do they do for the budget? guest: what they did is what we all expect to happen. the full set of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is not want to expire. they are going to be extended to everyone making under $250,000 a year, as the president has said

and people in congress have said. they will go back up to two to 9.6%, 36% -- up to 39.6%, 36% . with the alternative minimum tax, they patched it for a couple of years, but not for the future. it is not been hit the middle class. it was never intended to pre congress is not going to let it happen. -- it is not going to hit the middle class. it was never intended to. congress is not going to let it happen. host: springfield, illinois, republican line. caller: good morning, and thank you very much for c-span. i really enjoy it. my comments this morning are fairly simple. i think the whole country needs to back up a step and take a look. i am not allowed to outspend the

money i have. i don't see how our governments can be allowed to outspend the money that they have available. i think that all the way from the state level to the federal level, they need to be accountable for every dime that they spend it all this pork belly that goes on within our country -- i am just a small- time contractor . with the new laws on health care that are going into effect, it will put me out of business and i will have to do something else thankfully i still have a managing broker's license, and i can stay in real estate, which is down. but everything here is the same thing -- let's tax the this, let's tax the that it is like, wait a minute. the people paying the taxes are the ones that are hurting. host: isabel sawhill.

guest: the ones who are paying the taxes are the ones who are hurting, and most of the people paying the taxes are working age americans just like you doing everything they can. the big cost of the federal government, though, are due to the fact that, first of all, we are fighting a couple of wars, but secondly and even more importantly, we are becoming an over popular -- and older population. the baby boomers are beginning to retire, they are going on social security, they are going on medicare. health-care costs per capita are rising much faster than incomes or gdp. the result is that we are getting these enormous deficits and the accumulation of debt, which has simply been exacerbated by what we had to do to bail out the financial system and deal with the recession. the problem, though, is not so much that we are paying too much

in taxes. is that we are spending a lot, but nobody wants to be told that they cannot have medicare or the cannot have a social security. we have just gone through a big debate about health care, and we did pay for it, at least on paper, according to the congressional budget office. it is not going to make matters worse. but we did not do anything to make matters much better, either. i really think that goes to the fact that the older americans are becoming more numerous, they are politically powerful, and they are not going to want these benefits to beco cut. host: the first meeting of the debt commission that president obama created its meeting tuesday. "usa today" says, similar to what you just said, benefits are popular. "their paddles on entitlements in 1994, medicare in 1990 --

there were paddles on entitlements in 1994, medicare and in 1999, social security and 2001. the recommendations ranged from rational to radical, and none of them were implemented." curtis dubay. guest: it is never a good time to raise taxes, and always slows down economic growth, but doing so now, raising taxes on businesses and investors, people we need to help get economic growth going, seems to be a pretty bad idea. second, if taxes were not raised at all, kept or they ought right now revenues would get 18% of gdp. spending has averaged 20%. we have had a deficit some heart a little over 2% of gdp. we would be back at those levels if taxes were just allowed to take their course. we do not need big tax hikes to

get down to a reasonable the opposite. -- are reasonable deficit. host: missouri, independent line. caller: good morning, everyone. a few comments. the cbo comment on the flat tax was that it destroys the middle class, which is true, it would. can you imagine somebody going out and buying an automobile and having to pay 30% more? on the income tax, my opinion is that the income tax is too low. in 2010, personal income taxes collected amounted to 6.5% of gdp. corporate income taxes collected amounted to 1.4% of gdp. the united states ranks 17th worldwide in corporate income- tax. there is a lot of difference between the rate, the corporate

rate, and what corporations pay. if we look at the deficit, bailing out the financial industry did not add $1 to get -- did not add one dollar do to debt. and increasing the deficit is due to a reduction of revenue. it is not an increase in spending. host: we believe that there. guest: the income tax revenue fell for this year and probably next year. that is as a result of the recession. it collects a lot more revenue when times are good and economic growth is strong, and revenues fall sharply when we enter a recession. it will rebound as the economy rebounds. second, talking about the corporate income tax, i think

you are implying we do not collect a lot of corporate income tax revenue. our top corporate income-tax rate is 35%, 10 percentage points higher than the average of all industrialized countries. it is one of the major factors that we don't talk a lot about that is driving jobs overseas. we actually need to get the corporate rate down to help our companies be more competitive and keep jobs here. i understand the inclination is the point to corporations not paying a whole lot, but i will point out another thing, cut corporate taxes are paid by people -- that corporate taxes are paid by people. they are paid by employees of the company, the bird in his shoulder and -- the burden is shouldered by employees of the company and shareholders grid we need to get the top rate down. host: beverly, a phoenix, arizona, your the last call. caller: i hope you don't cut me off. i am 77 years old.

i went to the grocery store. i live on social security and small retirement. i had to put some of my food back because of the increase in state taxes in arizona. now, on social security, under reagan, when he changed social security, he let the federal government have their own federal program, and that took money out of the social security. and that is why we have this problem of the deficit in our social security. until you get control of federal employees and congress and the senate and their federal perks that they get for retirement and medical at all that, until it is equal, we will

never fix social security. host: isabel sawhill. guest: i think i want to interject a more optimistic note in this conversation. i think we have been very gloomy, including me. it really is possible to solve this problem, but we have to get together on the same page about it and we have to understand that all of us are going to have to maybe take a little bit more or do without some benefits -- maybe pay a little bit more or do without some benefits. i would never argue that people depend on social security checks should have to take less. but there are plenty of people like the bill gateses of the world who do not need the social security check. we could cut back on benefits for the more affluent. but we will also have to pay maybe a little bit more in taxes. let's talk about these so-called bush tax cuts that are going to expire soon and going to be debated. we mentioned a moment ago, and

as we pointed out, there is a $2.80 trillion of revenue their. if we simply took those rates back to where they were during the clinton years and during the 1990's, when the economy grew very well and the unemployment rate cut down very low and everybody was happy and the growth rates were tremendous. so i think that we should not be raising those rates or letting them expire right now, because of the recession, but a couple of years from now, we could do that, and that, along with some long-term fixes of these benefit programs we both have been talking about, would fix the problem. we just need to get it done. it does not have to be that painful if everybody pays their share. host: curtis dubay, final word? guest: i agree with it is a bell on the final picture. -- with isabel on the final

picture. we can get the problem fixed. it is just going to take some political will on capitol hill. host: thank you both for being here. appreciate the discussion this morning. coming up next, we will turn our attention to the prime minister debates and the election there. this is the headline in "the guardian," "clegg survived the storm." it will be right back to talk about that. -- we will be right back to talk about that.

>> the three democratic candidates running for the u.s. senate seat in arkansas will hold their first debate tonight incumbent senator blanche lincoln is being challenged by the lieutenant governor and a little rock businessman in the may 18 primary. live coverage at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, an online ad c-span.org. republican candidates are also running for the seat in the may election. also tonight, a debate between the five republicans running for the u.s. senate seat from indiana. the candidates in the may 4 primary include financial adviser, former u.s. senator dan coats, a former u.s. representative john hostetler. incumbent senator evan bayh is not seeking reelection. that is on c-span at 9 eastern.

>> we really have to get this right, because if we don't, we could stifle innovation, we could stifle the free market, we could stifle our economy, and we could cause more harm than good. >> as the senate moves closer to a vote tightening regulations on wall street, see the process unfold with congressional leaders, journalists, and experts at the seas and a video library. every program since 1987. now online. all this month, at sea the winners of at c-span's studentcam video documentary competition. middle and high schools from 45 states submitted videos on the countries greatest strengths or challenges that the country is facing. watch the winning videos every morning on c-span just before "washington journal." at 8:30 during the program, meet the students who made them. a visit studentcam.org.

>> "washington journal" continue straigs. host: joining us is jon- christopher bua of the sky news. joining us on the phone is the sky news political editor who moderated last night's debate. what is your general reaction to last -- yesterday's debate? guest: the extraordinary thing about their reaction to the date is that it continues to keep this general election absolutely alive, and the debates are clearly transforming the british political race in a way that nobody expected. basically what is happening is that the liberal democrats, headed by nick clegg, are running in second or first place. this really completely open

some -- opens up what could be the outcome when the british people vote on may 6. host: are you surprised by how the debates, which is the first time an american-style debate -- both of you, are you surprised about how they have been received over there? guest: well, at sky news campaign for these debates, and we always thought they were an obvious way, frankly, to bring up politics closer to the people. approved in the pudding has been in the eating -- but the proof in the pudding has been in the eating. millions of people have watched these debates, and when asked about them, they are showing that the debates are shaping and changing their opinion on how they are going to vote. it is what you expect the debate to do. it is true that the moves we had seen in the british general election as a result the debates are unprecedented.

guest: high, -- hi, adam, a great job last night. great being your colleague. this was the master stroke, believe are not, by the head of but sky news, who fought vigorously to get this entire concept of a live televised tv debate into the british electoral system. he worked hard and furious and it did work. as we saw last night, the product was one where people really fell engaged at were really excited about the concept. i think it has changed british politics forever. i think you don't need much time to catch up. host: let me ask you about the style of the debate. how did you decide the format, the rules, and if you could address where the candidates stood last night? guest: well, once the principle of agreement from the three

current party leaders was reached, the broadcaster's collectively, pdc -- bbc, itv, and sky set up common rules for the three debates which were going to take place. they are fairly close to what you have seen in your moderated debates and the united states, perhaps a little bit shorter. one of the issues, as you say, is where the leaders stand. it is a bit of a problem, because gordon brown, as a result of a schoolboy injury, has only got sight in one eye. he is stuck at the podium on the right of your screen as you watch it. clegg and cameron have been swapping around between the other two podiums. last night, at nick clegg was in the middle, which some people might see as more appropriate for a centrist party. but previously he was on the

left-hand side of the stage. for the final debate, taking place next thursday, i understand there is going to have to be a negotiation between the teams to decide whether clegg or cameron takes center stage. host: adam boulton, our viewers who are used to watching american-style debates are used to seeing a red button that says the time -- some sort of device that says the time is running out, time has expired. do you have that yet? it seems like you had to jump in but you had to jump in once there was more of a free style debate happening. each candidate had one minute to address the question and then one amende -- one minute to respond, and then it was kind of free-for-all. guest: that is right. they were remarkably well- behaved. we did not put a clock or red button, but within their i said, there was a clock ticking down. by and large they stuck to that.

but we did allow a free style debate where there was no guarantee that everyone would get time on each question, although i had to keep an eye to make sure nobody quite hogged it. overall, again, i think what we have seen is that the british political leaders -- you know, i tip my hat off to them for agreeing to hurt do this, making sure that david and -- for agreeing to do this, making sure that they really understood the rules when they got into the studio. that said, the critics of the debates in the conservative party in particular bought on the labor side as well are saying that big mistake the parties have made was to ever go on stage with three parties, because nick clegg has really gone in and stolen about 1/3 of the votes out there that the liberal democrats have never had before, and that is what is

upsetting the apple cart in this election. host: i think a lot of american viewers are going to be watching this for our next elections, and allowing a third party or promoting more of a third-party candidate in this country. guest: i mean, let me put an idea to you. we know that on both sides of the atlantic, there is a lot of disenchantment with conventional politics. just suppose that the tea party movement ran an independent candidate, not republican or democrat. what sort of impact would that have on american debate? host: we will talk about that more with jon-christopher bua, but before you go, i want to ask you how you prepared for your job as a moderator. guest: i, like most of your working moderator's -- like most of your moderators, and a working journalist. i obviously had to understand a

lot of the technical process of how the debates work. and i did get the chance to talk to all three leaders before hand and tell them individually what i saw as potentially the problems of the debate. but beyond that, in this debate, the questions were submitted by the live studio audience. we had to spend a lot of time going through the questions in advance that the audience what to ask, making sure that we picked out the best ones. host: last night after the debate on your show, you talked to dan rather. did you watch american moderators and debates to prepare? guest: i did, and there has been a lot of documentary coverage, because this is the first time we have never had these debates on british television. in the build -- we have ever had these debates on british television. in the build to this, i spoke to dan rather, i spoke to a jim lehrer, a number of other people

who have been involved one way or another in staging these debates. that has been very important for everyone who was been involved in the buildup. although we are beginning to sit down our own british precedents as well. host: what did you take away from those conversations? guest: i think i took away, and this is slightly different, if you like, from the british tradition paternalism -- i took away the view that these are serious and important events which should be treated as such. they are not just a kind of outsider tv entertainment. host: adam boulton, moderator of last night's debate and political editor of the sky news, thank you for joining us. guest: pleasure. host: let me turn to jon- christopher bua and talk about the americanization of these

debates. there were american consultants in fall. how did this come about? guest: it came about because this is the first time the british candidates have ever done this. we have been doing it in america for 30 years -- the first televised debate between kennedy and nixon in 1960. we went to american consultants to discuss and to coach, literally, hands-on, and sometimes it was obvious, and sometimes it was obvious for me, having been in this town for almost 20 years and knowing each one of those -- i will tell you who they are -- host: consultants? guest: consultants and handlers who coached the various candidates. really in the first debate more than the second, greta, you could actually see that and ha -- the hand on each candidate. host: why not say who they are?

guest: it is not my role. i do not want to cause any issues on the final debate but we will just leave it at that. but you see the to petco -- you see the gepetto-like a puppeteering. but, greta, you can only go so far. if a candidate is pushed into being a certain way, obama-like, for example, or reagan-like, you can see that. if it does not work, the candidate is very, very uncomfortable. one of the reasons mr. clegg it did so well in the first debate was that he was very comfortable in his own skin to things that people said about barack obama even way back, that he seemed comfortable in his own skin. sometimes you could see the advisers handiwork. the second time you did not see it as much. maybe it was internalized by that time and they were able to

be their own demand. people can see through that. host: what about gordon brown's performance and his comfort in that? guest: he is the older of the two, he is solid, he knows the policy issues. he is a little bit uncomfortable, for obvious reasons. there was a bit of the knicks in a radio factory those who would hear gordon brown -- there was a bit of the nixon radio effect. those who would hear gordon brown might think better of him . he also chose the technique of trying to make the two of them look a bit infantile. whether that was to his advantage, i don't know. host: 1 at the things dan rather said last night after the debates was that he felt that mr. cameron and mr. clegg really missed the opportunity to say,

"why haven't you changed and solved these problems? you have been in charge," to gordon brown. guest: i was with dan rather in the green room when they did the debate. i agree with him. he is a veteran of these. it took a few minutes into the second debate before the account and came around and said, "you have been running despite -- before david cameron came around and said you up and running this place for years. an american politician would have gone after that guy out of the box and basically male panda. excuse me, mr. president, you have been running this country -- and basically nailed him. excuse me, mr. president, you have been running this country for eight years. prime minister brown got away with that one. host: other aspects of this

campaign -- has there been other aspects of american-style campaign? guest: if you heard change one more time, you could be pretty upset. hillary is the change agent, obama is changed, i am experience so that i can be the change person. that was very clear and obvious. it's hard for a sitting prime minister to say he is going to be for change. and if you are on the progressive side, it is hard to imagine someone on the conservative side is saying he is the change agent. into the breach oppose mr. clegg, -- >goes mr. clegg, and because he is new and different and very young, he can seem obamaesque, the new guy. host: let's show our viewers a little bit of what all three candidates said about america.

>> on the point that gordon brown says about anti- americanism, i have a simple attitude about our relationship with america is an immensely important, a special relationship, but it should not be a one-way street. we should not automatically to what our american friends tell us to do. we have to make sure we act on the world stage in our interest. >> i persuaded the americans to be part of the g-20 to deal with the banking crisis and i am pushing the americans to deal with climate change as well david, it is the big society at home, but a little bit and abroad. you have to rethink your policies. -- the little britain and abroad. you have to rethink your policies. >> i think they don't want a britain that stands for itself in europe. host: they're calling each other by their first names. guest: you would not hear

candidate obama saying -- well, he did say hillary, but you would not hear ronald mooror ronnie. the british public also called them by their first name. it is kind of charming, in a way. host: do you have a reason why? guest: i think it is a smaller country. our president is seen in a different way. the parliamentary system is very different from presidential elections but we basically elect a star on inauguration day. the party affiliations are very different than the parliamentary system, where you basically vote for the party. that is going to be interesting to see exactly what happens, if there is a hung parliament pr. host: mike, you are the first phone call. caller: good morning, greta.

it's a pleasure to speak with you. guest: thank you. caller: when i did watch the debate, i heard the word change quite a bit, too. now, i myself am a registered democrat, but long before that, i was a card-carrying greenie, and the only reason i registered as a democrat was because i felt so strongly about obama becoming president. he is not as near to the left as i would like him, but i also have to understand that if he were more to the left like i would like, somebody out there were tried -- it would try to kill him. that scares the hell out of me. but my point being that we do need, in my estimation, a viable third party in this country. host: all right. guest: i don't disagree with you.

every element of -- in terms of this electoral process is an important one, and every person should be represented. you do, as president kennedy said, get the leadership that you deserve in a democracy. i think he made a valid point. it was interesting that you mentioned the environment. they brought up a question about what do you do every day to save the environment in terms of being a green citizen? they all mentioned it taking the train. i thought that was very interesting. host: coverage in the u.s. papers of last night's debate is in most of the papers, a story within the papers. the only paper that has it on the front page is "the washington times," and their headline, "civility to the u.s." -- "britinons debate servility o

u.s." guest: no one could imagine lbj eight debating -- lbj debating goldwater. can you imagine? that would be fascinating. i think americans were turned off to debate. we had 30-some mind-numbing debates. some people think enough is enough. i also think it is a great thing. it is a great to hone your skills as a candidate and a great opportunity but the american people who have television to make a decision. if you can see that candidate every week for a year, you can make a choice. they have become more contentious, and one of the women who put it to get -- when the women who put it

together and the voters, parties took it over, it did not go so well. it was better when the league of women voters were in charge of the show, and the american people should realize that this is part of our democracy, a good thing. if you don't want to watch it, fine, if you want to watch it later, fine, but is there. these people will be in your living room for the next nauseating for years, so you better appreciate them on tv. you might as well go out and make the toys, and tv is a great way to do that. -- make that choice, ntt is a great way to do that. host: if you want watched the debate, but the c-span.org - -- if you want to watch the debate, go to c-span.org. caller: good morning, greta. i was originally a u.k. citizen.

i am i u.s. citizen now. but i was in the u.k. during the 1997 election when tony blair came to power. it was largely because of the influence of the sky news and "the sun" newspaper that people shifted in that direction i am not saying that there is anything necessarily wrong with that, but your test ought to explain -- your guess on to explain that sky news is park rupert murdoch's organization, whose prime oregon here is the fox news and "the wall -- st. prime organ here is a fox news at "the wall street journal." guest: i am i yank, and i work for sky news, and there has never been any political influence i have received from the folks at sky news.

it is a 24 hour news network, and i have enough to do to get news on the air, and they do a remarkable job and i'm happy to be part of the team did a double the size, as you know, being born at -- a great they don't politicize, as you know, sir, being born in britain. you cannot do propaganda, you cannot be the propaganda arm of the shadow government. unlike here, we have all sorts of light and you can make a choice in terms of -- all sorts of lineups, and you can make a choice and terms of what you watch. sky news does not make political statements or support any political candidate. host: republican line. caller: i'm calling from austin. of course at sky news has a political bias. rupert murdoch supported the neocons in america and add tony blair, a neocon lackey in

britain. now they are pushing us to attack iran. there was a documentary that talked about the protest israel lobby influence in england. -- pro-israel lobby influence in england. host: we will leave it there. our guest address to the first time. next call. caller: i have a question about the terminology in glen or britain or scotland -- terminology in england or britain or scotland -- i was wondering what will english nationalism really kick in, if the english people will vote on english matters only. guest: we may have tried to keep adam on the line lager for that as much as i try to have as much a british politics ruboff on me

and policy, i am not the authority on that. the proper term for england, scotland, wales, and northern ireland is the united kingdom. that is the word i stick with. host: "the washington post" writes about the debate, saying that opened what it appears to shape the outcome of the vote more than a -- anyone here that "it appears to shape the outcome of the vote more than anyone imagined." guest: nicholas cage -- sorry, nick clegg, has shown that he is not an also-ran. he can be a kingmaker. there is a hung parliament, then his influence, which right now -- there are not many seats in parliament run by or taken by the liberal democrats. it is 62, as opposed to the

conservatives, 193, and the labor party, three outer 45. -- 345. you need a majority of 326. mr. brown could lose and remained the leader as well. left with 18 days of not being able to form a proper government, the mark steps in -- the monarch steps in and will take the time to say, excuse me, mr. brown, former government, or i will choose. host: the queen can make the decision. ohio, good morning. caller: the british people are always in my prayers. my father works from scotland. i was kind of wondering what are

the main issues in britain were, and i'm kind of wondering what they felt about being part of the eu and how the british people feel about that. i just listen to your call. thank you, god bless. guest: thank you, sir. we have a strong relationship with the united kingdom, goes back to two world wars. obviously, our declaration of independence was written about king george and getting ourselves free from great britain. however, we are very close, personally, and a lot of us have very strong personal connections with people in the united kingdom. that, i think, will stay. you really want your question answered in terms of the politics, the eu and the "special" relationship, you

might want to watch the debate again, because these candidates have more to very clearly what the difference is in dealing with --h av have marked very clearly what the difference is in dealing with the eu, which is a contentious issue. host: the candidates talked about how they differ on that it was at the beginning of last night's debate. let me show you a bit more of the interaction between the three candidates. >> president obama said last week, quite rightly, that the greatest threat is not the cold war threat of old, but terrorists getting a hold of dirty bombs. let's move with the times and take decisions when we need to take them and have this review, which i talked about after the election. >> i have to deal with these decisions every day and i say to you, nick, get real. iran, you are saying, might be able to have a nuclear weapon, and he would not take action against them, but we have to

give up our trident -- get real about the danger we face if we have north korea, iran, and other countries with nuclear weapon -- >> this is extraordinary. to say get real -- what is dangerous is to commit to spend all whole lot of money we might not have won the world has changed and we are facing new threats and more military experts -- you want to hold a review and you want to exclude the one big issue which should be right at the heart of that review. >> i thought i would never utter these words, but i agree with gordon. host: that back-and-forth, change versus experience, it should sound very familiar to this american audience. guest: 8 is. we saw it with candidate hillary clinton, her famous advertisement, to a cop in the morning. saying she has a -- experienced 2:00 in the morning, saying that she has the experience.

but barack obama had less amount of baggage and votes you could hold against him. it is a tossup. but change and experience is definitely part of this. prime minister brown wanted to make the two of them look like sonny boy's but whether he succeeded or not, and he -- and whether he came out looking more dour, that is up to voters. host: one thing similar to our country is instant polls, who won the debate? for the most part, they showed that brown came in last, but the other two, it went back and forth. guest: a conservative organization immediately put cameron had won a two 0.3 the more liberal organizations but nick clegg ahead of -- you points a conservative or it -- a conservative organization immediately put cat and ahead

one or two points. the multiple organizations but nick clegg ahead. host: california, good morning. caller: i had a question about nick clegg's comments about dealing with america last night but it seems to wants to distance himself a little bit more. what do you think the british people think about this, since we have are really tight relationship with them? guest: i think that is really good question, and i think that the british people are as mixed as the three candidates you saw. what was great about this debate was that each one of these candidates represented a different way of thinking in the united kingdom, and i agree that what we will see is that where the majority, or, hopefully come up with a hung jury -- the hong parliament, is that there is someone at that policy will go through. the relationship with with the

the united kingdom is strong and extremely personal. as the no. 1 tourist destination for american citizens. host: another moment from last night's date is when he talked about faith. >> we agree to a visit from the pope but does that mean we agree with everything he says? now. -- no. >> my wife is catholic and my children are being brought up in her face so i have a little of insight into the intense feelings of anguish among catholics here. they feel is extremely torn apart about what has happened, and they want to see the catholic church expressed greater openness and repentance. you cannot keep a lid on sin and you have to move with the times. i do welcome deparle's visit, but i hope all -- the kindthe p

-- i do welcome the pope's visit i hope he does acknowledge that there is an immense scarring on people's lives and we need openness and he cannot undo the tragedies of the past, but you can be open about them so that people can start to move on. host: be taken american audience -- do you think and american audiences would accept candidate who says, but what i am not a man of faith"? guest: when nick clegg said that, dan rather and i said that would be the moment in the united states to pull the plug, it is over. the united states is considered a very religious country. if you are not a religious person -- barack obama has been

taking some hits because he has not decided which church wants to go to every sunday. you can imagine that if a candidate says i am not a man or woman of faith, it would be the end -- host: how will that play out with nick clegg? guest: it is a different culture, not a big issue. we would never talk about the pope, either. it is more of the third rail than social security. you just stay away. host: akron, ohio. caller: i am just curious about gordon brown. i don't know much about him, but on youtube, you see speeches where he talks about the same thing, bush, hillary, the new world order. i'm wondering if jon-christopher could explain what the new world order is. guest: i wish i knew what the old world order is. i don't see him as an

underlying forces for any kind of evil. i think that what you see is what you get. maybe people have seen enough. i don't know. that is a question up to the british people. host: our viewers on at c-span are used to watching him on prime minister question time. it is something we cover on c- span. how did last night's debate differ from that kind of style, and why is it even necessary to have a debate like they did last night when they do prime minister questions? guest: 1 1/2 spyware -- one of the hats i wear is that i am the sky news white house commentator. people have said, wait a second, brits have never done debates on tv? what about prime minister's questions? which, by the way, you cover wonderfully. a very popular show. people think british people to

debate because of the oxford debate style they develop. prime minister's questions are much more control, even though it seems like a rock this time. -- like a raucous time it is not citizens asking questions, it is their opponents. they are much more at ease with that format, even though they are fired up, that the three of them sitting there, being judged, questions from the audience. it is an interesting thought. host: pat, on the democratic line, at your next rep -- you are next. caller: at time when it terrorism and everything going on now, and they're talking about closing nasa, why would we turn our operations to the chinese? we tried to help everybody in the world. i think all of these people -- i

can see where the -- i cannot see where the thinkers and doers are in this country. guest: you ought to address the question to mr. gibbs, the president's spokesperson. i do not work for the administration. i did work for the clinton administration, but i was on the other side of the podium, and now i am on this side of the bottom. host: are you at the white house every day? guest: considerable matter today, and i spend wednesdays at georgetown university, where i am an adjunct professor on politics and the media and the american-european perspective. it is the greatest time i've ever had it is a graduate school, german and european studies, and it is a wonderful group of young people. i hate to be ending this mr. b -- the semester.

host: republican line. caller: i have a comment which has to do with my response to the weight of the english language -- i am shocked that they make so many mistakes. i was brought up to respect the language. i would have thought that it would be on top of it on that level. the use the word "between" to refer to three people report. and others. guest: i would be delighted. i write a blog and i make sure that when it is edited, i use "amongst" instead of "between."

if i don't, they send it back and say, "j.c., i had to change a few words. it is their language. we are using it." host: independent line, you on next. caller: i want jon to explain how the liberal democrats fit into the political spectrum. in the united states, it is left, right, and nothing else. if the liberal democrats picked up a lot of seats', how would that affect american politics? i remember nick clegg saying something about how the american-british alliance is over. i would like for you to comment on that. guest: i don't think that will ever be the case. perhaps, as greta was alluding to earlier, maybe three party

races are important here if you would think of this -- the liberal democrats had 63 seats and they will not get that much more, i don't think it out because of a coalition that has to be formed, clegg will be brought in to discuss positions in the newest government, minister positions. he may have some influence. it is an open debate. the relationship with america and the new president is always there, always on the forefront of everything that goes on in the world. the united states has that kind of influence. host: 1 is the next debate? -- when is the next day? guest: we do them on thursdays. it is on the 29th, on bbc. credit goes steto itv and bbc as

well, who want to do it for the american people to see and for the british people to be part of. and c-span has been fantastic in giving this opportunity. it has become quite a story in the united states and is quite exciting and i thank you all for that as well. host: democratic line, good morning. are you with us? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: they say that our relations with the bridge and people -- britain people are deep and personal, and i'm wondering, in what way are they deep and personal? guest: my goodness, just talk to your dad or grandfather preparing for the invasion under general eisenhower to liberate france and europe from nazi nomination, or those who fought

in al alamein -- from nazi domination or those who fought in el alamein. there is a new show called "the pacific." the americans and british have worked together on democracy. don't forget, winston churchill, one of the greatest prime minister's and icons of the past century, his model was america. host: jon-christopher bua, political analyst for sky news. thank you. the shaper it will take you to the -- we will take you to the senate finance committee ag. this is already under way. thanks for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> nonetheless that is what

merrill was asking for, and in another e-mail, an s&p analyst commented, version 6.0 of the rating model could have been released months ago, and resources assigned elsewhere, if we did not have to massage the subprime number is to preserve market share. some witnesses to date will describe how the environment change -- today will describe how the environment changed from an academic culture focused on accurate ratings to one of intense pressure to get deals done and preserve market share. the documents also show how the crushing volume of ratings undermined the rating process. despite record profits, but credit-rating agencies -- both

credit rating agencies were understaffed and overwhelmed with complex deals that investment bankers wanted to close within days. the documents show how investment bankers argued with credit rating analysts, substituted the worst assets at the last minute, and pressured analysts to waive their procedures and standards could be sought instances of bankers pushing to remove -- we saw instances of bankers pushing to remove analysts who were not playing ball. and at times, analysts who resisted anchor demands -- banker demands with challenge ratings were restricted from trading deals. how is on short-term profits also permeated the industry. -- focus on short-term profits also permitted the industry to one of our witnesses will talk about how what he wanted to question the deal, they required question the deal, they required ibg-ybg.